Wide Angle?

C

Cally

Suspended / Banned
Messages
148
Name
Cally
Edit My Images
Yes
Hiya,

Not quite got my head around the difference in lens yet, I am after a wide angle lens though.

Originally I saw this one which I am leaning towards;

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/camer...-ed-if-wide-angle-zoom-lens-12324617-pdt.html

but I am wondering why this is so much cheaper?

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/camer...mm-f-2-8-4e-ed-vr-zoom-lens-10135609-pdt.html

And this is another option similar to the top one;

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/camer...-if-ed-wide-angle-zoom-lens-12324653-pdt.html

I'm sorry if I am being a bit of an idiot but I've not much experience with lens (and don't want to make any costly mistakes) I have the 35mm and 50mm primes, 55-300 zoom (f4 something or other) and the kit lens 20-70mm (f4something or other again lol) but I am struggling with my photography if I am trying to take a photo with my 35mm I am only getting one person in and missing half the photo(i.e the other person laughing together) in a small room...hence wanting the wide angle? Hope that makes sense.
 
16 & 17mm aren't particularly wide - the wider the lens the harder it is to produce so they tend to be more expensive - I think !

I would look at the Nikon 10-24 which is cheaper than the 14-24. Its slower but thats not too important for wide angles...

Or look at the Tamron or Sigma alternatives - if you can afford it go Nikon though !
 
oh dear another thing !

One of those lenses is a DX lens and the others are FX I think !

Is your camera full frame or not ?
 
justa1972 said:
One of those lenses is a DX lens and the others are FX I think !

Is your camera full frame or not ?
Click to expand...

This is quite important as with either a dx or fx lens you would have to take the 'crop factor' into account with a dx/crop body. Looking a thread a month ago you said you have upgraded from a d3200 to a d7200. If that's the case a dx wide angle lens is what you really need.

The 14-24mm lens is a specialist lens that you would get if you knew you needed it. There are a fee issues with that lens like the large bulbous end that sticks out and is difficult/expensive for filters.

If you you fx cameras lens like:

Nikon 16-35 f4
Nikon 17-35 f2.8
Nikon 24-70 f2.8

If you use dx (crop) camera lens like:

Nikon 12-24mm f4
Nikon 10-24m f3.5-4.5
Nikon 17-55 f2.8

As you don't know exactly what you want I would hire a lens for one of your weddings to see if it's what you need. It would be cheaper than buying the wrong lens. It would help if you knew exactly what lenses you have as you say the problem is with the 35mm lens not being wide enough yet say you have a 20-70 something kit lens. Is the problem the kit lens isn't fast enough but is the right focal range and the 35mm is fast enough but not wide enough?
 
Last edited:
Thanks I haven't used the kit lens since the first few weeks I got it as I stuck my 50mm on my camera and never took it off until I started buying other lens but I will get it out this week and try it at 20mm and see what I think. (The problem though with this lens is the aperture, I need one I can use creatively and not be limited to a 4-5 f stop range or whatever it is. )

It is indeed the D7200, I wish I had researched more into a full frame now but it will do me for the time being.

Thank you for the help so far, but yes I think you have the problem exactly right in the top post.

I.e I had a little BM walk in the Bride was in tears but I could only take a picture of one and then the other despite being practically next to each other.

I'm not really a fan of buying anything other then Nikon lens unless enough people were telling me the same thing then I would take the hit but I would rather spend that bit extra and get the brand.

This would be the one? You think it would be quite a small but wide lens given that it's meant to be a wide angle :D

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-17-55mm-F2-8G-AF-S-IF-ED-lens/dp/B000144I2Q
 
Last edited:
If you want a 17-50mm f2.8 i'd be looking at the Tamron or Sigma offerings myself as they come in at about a quarter of the price of the Nikon, have a look at some reviews comparing the 3 of them, but the Nikon is very expensive compared to the competitors
 
It's really important that you decide how wide you want. At the shorter focal lengths a few mm shorter makes a big difference. You can try your own kit zoom to get a feel for what the view angles down to 17mm give you. It depends on the exact size of your crop frame sensor. You can easily Google up tables or web calculators if you want to know the angles. I don't do weddings, for which you want good sharpness at wide apertures. I do architectural so I want best edge to edge sharpness and good depth of focus. Lots of sharp detail. Lowesr ISO. For most wide lenses that's between f8 & f11. Because buildings stand still I can afford longer exposures including on a tripod.

On my camera 10mm gives me touch more than 90 degrees view angle, which means if II jam the camera into the corner of a room I can just pick out things protruding the two adjacent walls, such as picture frames and curtains. Whereas 8mm give me enough extra to step out from the corner and get a slanting perspective view of each of the two adjacent walls of the room. That means I can photograph all four walls of a room from inside it with enough extra to do some perspective adjustment of verticals and lens geometry. That difference between 8mm &10mm in a linear lens is a really big important difference to me. You won't want to go as wideas that, but you must decide just how wide you want. It's no use thinking it must be wide enough because it says "wide angle" on the lens box. It says "wide angle" on some 35mm lens boxes, and on your camera that's not remotely wide angle, it's what is often said to be the normal human viewing angle.
 
For truly wide on a DX body like the D7200 you need to be looking at 10mm lenses which will give you an effective FOV to a 15mm lens
 
Sounds like a nikon 17-55 f2.8 or a nikon 12-24 f4 would be ideal if you wanted ultra wide. I would try your kit lens then you will have a better idea which to go for focal length wise.
 
Whoops it's actually 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 so I guess the perfect lens to experiment with...crazy to spend so much just to get control of the aperture but I guess it will need to be done... I guess in long run if I teamed it up with a 70mm-200mm and a marco I'd essentially be done and never have to worry about changing lens apart from the small detail shots (on two bodies ofc)

Edit: Actually in long run I better get myself a full frame with same kind of kit...! Whilst I am here is there any reason you would use a 35mm prime instead of the 35mm zoom (ish) setting on the 17-55mm? So I wouldn't need my two primes if I had the 18-55mm lens? (Apart from if I needed to go down to 1.8 f stop)
 
Last edited:
Cally said:
Whoops it's actually 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 so I guess the perfect lens to experiment with...crazy to spend so much just to get control of the aperture but I guess it will need to be done... I guess in long run if I teamed it up with a 70mm-200mm and a marco I'd essentially be done and never have to worry about changing lens apart from the small detail shots (on two bodies ofc)

Edit: Actually in long run I better get myself a full frame with same kind of kit...! Whilst I am here is there any reason you would use a 35mm prime instead of the 35mm zoom (ish) setting on the 17-55mm? So I wouldn't need my two primes if I had the 18-55mm lens? (Apart from if I needed to go down to 1.8 f stop)
Click to expand...
It's not just the wider aperture these more expensive f/2.8 zoom lenses give you.

They are better made, have better optics (you want it sharp when wide open, otherwise why bother?), better focusing and stabilisation and generally are sharper across the whole focal range.

That's where your money's going :)

Yes, there may be lots of reasons to use the prime over 35mm with the zoom lens. It's better optically so you'll get a shaper image (even a very good zoom will be compromised to some degree as it has to cope with a range of lengths), and it's still likely to be faster so you can get a shallower depth of field and use it in much lower light levels.

As for the lenses in your OP, one is a constant f/2.8 throughout its range and the other isn't (it goes from f/2.8 at the wide end to a max f/4 at the long end), another reason for the price difference.
 
Last edited:
Cally said:
Actually in long run I better get myself a full frame with same kind of kit...!
Click to expand...
Why do you think that? The D7200 is an excellent camera. What do you think you'd achieve by switching to an FX camera?
 
StewartR said:
Why do you think that? The D7200 is an excellent camera. What do you think you'd achieve by switching to an FX camera?
Click to expand...

It's a 'must have' and they work better in low light as the sensor is better/bigger, plus better to do the switch early as possible as the lens you buy are different and you'll end up having to spend a lot of money upgrading if you change later on down line.

You can correct me if I am wrong but this is what I have been told. :coat:
 
Cally said:
It's a 'must have' and they work better in low light as the sensor is better/bigger, plus better to do the switch early as possible as the lens you buy are different and you'll end up having to spend a lot of money upgrading if you change later on down line.

You can correct me if I am wrong but this is what I have been told. :coat:
Click to expand...
Not strictly true, many DX users work in low light at ISO 100-400, depends what sort of shutter speed you're looking to achieve among other things.
 
Cally said:
It's a 'must have' and they work better in low light as the sensor is better/bigger, plus better to do the switch early as possible as the lens you buy are different and you'll end up having to spend a lot of money upgrading if you change later on down line.

You can correct me if I am wrong but this is what I have been told. :coat:
Click to expand...

Not sure where that has come from, it's certainly not a 'Must Have' if you are like many wildlife photographers who prefer the effective reach advantage a crop sensor camera gives them

I speak from experience, i thought in my early days it was the 'done thing' to strive for FF, so i chopped my D300 in for a D700...... fast forward 6 months and it was sold on as i didn't see all that much improvement IQ wise, lost far too much reach at the long end, and couldn't afford half of the lenses i would have liked due to the FF equivalent lenses being so much more expensive

I now have a D7100 which has as good a high ISO performance as the D700 did (IMO) and am much happier paying less for my lenses and having a more compact, cheaper, lighter setup
 
I think that you should try an ultra wide angle lens and assess how much you would use it at the wide end and how far you really want to go

Also if you are now DX and plan to go FX, and if you need f2.8 or would be happy with f4

do you really want the ultra wide look or just a wider conventional shot?

IMHO, the 16 35mm f4 VR is a good place to start and if you really want wider try sticking a couple of shots together
 
Cally said:
It's [FF] a 'must have' and they work better in low light as the sensor is better/bigger, plus better to do the switch early as possible as the lens you buy are different and you'll end up having to spend a lot of money upgrading if you change later on down line.

You can correct me if I am wrong but this is what I have been told. :coat:
Click to expand...

That's very often said to photographers by the experts who work in camera shops. They're the same experts who try to persuade you to buy "lens protection" filters for the lens they've just sold you. Makes you wonder if there might be some other motive at work here apart from simple helpful evidence-based factual honesty :-)
 
Cally said:
It's a 'must have'...
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's rubbish. If a FX camera is a 'must have', why not a Hasselblad with an even bigger sensor?

FX cameras do some things better than DX cameras. If those are things that you want or need, and if your current camera doesn't deliver enough in those dimensions, and if you're willing to pay the extra price, then switching to FX is a good idea. But there were an awful lot of 'if's there!
Cally said:
... and they work better in low light as the sensor is better/bigger...
Click to expand...
True. But only relevant if your current camera doesn't work well enough for you in low light.
Cally said:
... plus better to do the switch early as possible as the lens you buy are different and you'll end up having to spend a lot of money upgrading if you change later on down line.
Click to expand...
Well, if you've decided that you definitely want to switch, whether from DX to FX, or from Nikon to Fuji, or any other switch, then it makes sense to stop investing in the system you're switching from. Switching early could save you money compared to switching late; but not as much money as you'd save by not switching if you don't need to.
 
That last bit is true Stewart but switching now would cost me a hell of a lot more in short term when all I really need is a wide angle and a marco right now.. *if* I decide to switch it would be hopefully in a few years, right now there is no need for it and I just don't have the excess funds to me messing around. It sounds like an expensive better option but not ness a needed option if that makes sense.

I had a play with my 18mm lens and I'm happy. Love the difference. I found one on eBay but it's 4 years old...not sure how long lens last but 4 years seems an awful long time and don't want to spend £400 + for it to possibly break over 6 months.
 
Cally said:
That last bit is true Stewart but switching now would cost me a hell of a lot more in short term when all I really need is a wide angle and a marco right now.. *if* I decide to switch it would be hopefully in a few years, right now there is no need for it and I just don't have the excess funds to me messing around. It sounds like an expensive better option but not ness a needed option if that makes sense.

I had a play with my 18mm lens and I'm happy. Love the difference. I found one on eBay but it's 4 years old...not sure how long lens last but 4 years seems an awful long time and don't want to spend £400 + for it to possibly break over 6 months.
Click to expand...

I'm using a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 push pull, made around 1991 and still going strong. Sharp, optically perfect and looks like it could go another 10 years no problem. 4 years is nothing if a lens has been looked after.
 
Cally said:
That last bit is true Stewart but switching now would cost me a hell of a lot more in short term when all I really need is a wide angle and a marco right now.. *if* I decide to switch it would be hopefully in a few years, right now there is no need for it and I just don't have the excess funds to me messing around. It sounds like an expensive better option but not ness a needed option if that makes sense.

I had a play with my 18mm lens and I'm happy. Love the difference. I found one on eBay but it's 4 years old...not sure how long lens last but 4 years seems an awful long time and don't want to spend £400 + for it to possibly break over 6 months.
Click to expand...
You mean macro?

If you buy a Macro lens, you'll be able to use it on both DX and FX. Iirc other than 1 Canon lens (efs 60mm) there are not many crop only macro lenses these days (not of the preferred 100mm +).

A lens could last you 30 years. Why would it break after 6 months?! 4 years is absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:
Get your self the sigma 8-16mm if you want ultra wide angle that's what I'll be getting for my D7200
 
odd jim said:
A lens could last you 30 years. Why would it break after 6 months?! 4 years is absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
A lens could last 30 years but todays lenses with their electronic components and soldered joints? It's possible. I'd possibly worry about electronic gear made when the RoHS and WEEE directives first came in. Certainly the companies I did business with struggled for a while with the switch over (components and from leaded to lead free solder) with some of the early switch over stuff possibly/probably having a question mark over longevity.
 
Maybe, but that's easily fixed if we're just talking circuit wiring.
 
Cally said:
That last bit is true Stewart but switching now would cost me a hell of a lot more in short term when all I really need is a wide angle and a marco right now.. *if* I decide to switch it would be hopefully in a few years, right now there is no need for it and I just don't have the excess funds to me messing around. It sounds like an expensive better option but not ness a needed option if that makes sense.

I had a play with my 18mm lens and I'm happy. Love the difference. I found one on eBay but it's 4 years old...not sure how long lens last but 4 years seems an awful long time and don't want to spend £400 + for it to possibly break over 6 months.
Click to expand...

I'm still using a couple of lenses I've had for at least 30 years. Half the lenses I've bought since going digital were used, a couple of them about 30 years old. As far as my lenses & cameras are concerned by far the most important factor in malfunctions is them being dropped, kicked, etc.. With one exception (fungus in a 30 yr old Russian lens) age per se has never caused any problems. In fact I'm still using an excellent 30 year old flashgun.
 
Thanks. I've gone for a slightly more expensive one...he says it's only a year old (some reason I don't quite believe him eep!) but the other one had no box or bag and he had brought a new lens hood (He is promoting this, I see this as someone not looking after the equipment because he has lost it...does happen but I have all my boxes and bags)

The one I have brought says it's in very good condition. Guess I can always return it if isn't.
 
What lens exactly did you get?

Surely 18mm isn't that much different to the 20mm you already have (although can't say I've ever heard of a 20-70).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top